Project Megiddo

Project Megiddo

The attached analysis, entitled PROJECT MEGIDDO,
is an FBI strategic assessment of the potential for domestic
terrorism in the United States undertaken in anticipation of
or response to the arrival of the new millennium.

Table
of contents

I. Executive summary

The year 2000 is being discussed and debated at all levels of
society. Most of thediscussions regarding this issue revolve
around the topic of technology and our society's overwhelming
dependence on the multitude of computers and computer chips
which make our world run smoothly. However, the upcoming millennium
also holds important implications beyond the issue of computer
technology. Many extremist individuals and groups place some
significance on the next millennium, and as such it will present
challenges to law enforcement at many levels. The significance
is based primarily upon either religious beliefs relating to
the Apocalypse or political beliefs relating to the New World
Order (NWO) conspiracy theory. The challenge is how well law
enforcement will prepare and respond.

The following report, entitled "Project Megiddo," is
intended to analyze the potential for extremist criminal activity
in the United States by individuals or domestic extremist groups
who profess an apocalyptic view of the millennium or attach special
significance to the year 2000. The purpose behind this assessment
is to provide law enforcement agencies with a clear picture of
potential extremism motivated by the next millennium. The report
does not contain information on domestic terrorist groups whose
actions are not influenced by the year 2000.

There are numerous difficulties involved in providing a thorough
analysis of domestic security threats catalyzed by the new millennium.
Quite simply, the very nature of the current domestic terrorism
threat places severe limitations on effective intelligence gathering
and evaluation. Ideological and philosophical belief systems which
attach importance, and possibly violence, to the millennium have
been well-articulated. From a law enforcement perspective, the
problem therefore is not a lack of understanding of motivating
ideologies: The fundamental problem is that the traditional focal
point for counterterrorism analysis -- the terrorist group -- is
not always well-defined or relevant in the current environment.

The general trend in domestic extremism is the terrorist’s
disavowal of traditional, hierarchical, and structured terrorist
organizations. Even well-established militias, which tend to organize
along military lines with central control, are characterized by
factionalism and disunity. While several “professional” terrorist
groups still exist and present a continued threat to domestic security,
the overwhelming majority of extremist groups in the United States
have adopted a fragmented, leaderless structure where individuals
or small groups act with autonomy. Clearly, the worst act of domestic
terrorism in United States history was perpetrated by merely two
individuals: Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. In many cases,
extremists of this sort are extremely difficult to identify until
after an incident has occurred. Thus, analysis of domestic extremism
in which the group serves as the focal point of evaluation has
obvious limitations.

The Project Megiddo intelligence initiative has identified very
few indications of specific threats to domestic security. Given
the present nature of domestic extremism, this is to be expected.
However, this is a function of the limitations of the group-oriented
model of counterterrorism analysis and should not be taken necessarily
as reflective of a minor or trivial domestic threat. Without question,
this initiative has revealed indicators of potential violent activity
on the part of extremists in this country. Militias, adherents
of racist belief systems such as Christian Identity and Odinism,
and other radical domestic extremists are clearly focusing on the
millennium as a time of action. Certain individuals from these
various perspectives are acquiring weapons, storing food and clothing,
raising funds through fraudulent means, procuring safe houses,
preparing compounds, surveying potential targets, and recruiting
new converts. These and other indicators are not taking place in
a vacuum, nor are they random or arbitrary. In the final analysis,
while making specific predictions is extremely difficult, acts
of violence in commemoration of the millennium are just as likely
to occur as not. In the absence of intelligence that the more established
and organized terrorist groups are planning millennial violence
as an organizational strategy, violence is most likely to be perpetrated
by radical fringe members of established groups. For example, while
Aryan Nations leader Richard Butler publicly frowns on proactive
violence, adherents of his religion or individual members of his
organization may commit acts of violence autonomously.

Potential cult-related violence presents additional challenges
to law enforcement. The potential for violence on behalf of members
of biblically-driven cults is determined almost exclusively by
the whims of the cult leader. Therefore, effective intelligence
and analysis of such cults requires an extensive understanding
of the cult leader. Cult members generally act to serve and please
the cult leader rather than accomplish an ideological objective.
Almost universally, cult leaders are viewed as messianic in the
eyes of their followers. Also, the cult leader’s prophecies,
preachings, orders, and objectives are subject to indiscriminate
change. Thus, while analysis of publicly stated goals and objectives
of cults may provide hints about their behavior and intentions,
it is just as likely to be uninformed or, at worst, misleading.
Much more valuable is a thorough examination of the cult leader,
his position of power over his followers, and an awareness of the
responding behavior and activity of the cult. Sudden changes in
activity - for example, less time spent on “Bible study” and
more time spent on “physical training” - indicate that
the cult may be preparing for some type of action.

The millennium holds special significance for many, and as this
pivotal point in time approaches, the impetus for the initiation
of violence becomes more acute. Several religiously motivated groups
envision a quick, fiery ending in an apocalyptic battle. Others
may initiate a sustained campaign of terrorism in the United States
to prevent the NWO. Armed with the urgency of the millennium as
a motivating factor, new clandestine groups may conceivably form
to engage in violence toward the U.S. Government or its citizens.

Most importantly, this analysis clearly shows that perceptions
matter. The perceptions of the leaders and followers of extremist
organizations will contribute much toward the ultimate course of
action they choose. For example, in-depth analysis of Y2K compliancy
on the part of various key sectors that rely on computers has determined
that, despite a generally positive outlook for overall compliance,
there will be problem industries and minor difficulties and inconveniences.
[1] If they occur, these inconveniences are likely to cause varying
responses by the extreme fringes. Members of various militia groups,
for example, have identified potentially massive power failures
as an indication of a United Nations-directed NWO takeover. While
experts have indicated that only minor brownouts will occur, various
militias are likely to perceive such minor brownouts as indicative
of a larger conspiracy. [2]

The Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem
has stated that some state and local governments could be unprepared,
including the inability to provide benefits payments. [3] This
could have a significant impact in major urban areas, resulting
in the possibility for civil unrest. Violent white supremacists
are likely to view such unrest as an affirmation of a racist, hate-filled
world view. Likewise, militia members who predict the implementation
of martial law in response to a Y2K computer failure would become
all the more fearful.

1. U.S. Congress, Senate, Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology
Problem, Investigating the Impact of the Year 2000 Problem, February
24, 1996, pp. 1-6.